interference/obs

[scyguy]

According to FED rule, interference or obstruction.

a) catcher moves up 3rd base line to catch ball while runner approaches home. Ball is approx 10 feet from catcher when contact occurs. Catcher is moving toward ball at the time of impact.
b) same situation but in this case catcher is not moving at time of impact (standing in the baseline) but is up the third base line approx 4-5 feet from home

c)R1 and R3, R1 steals. 2B moves forward from fielding position to recieve ball from catcher (defense is trying to decoy R3 to advance home). As ball is in flight, R1 and 2B collide. It appears that 2B stepped into the path of R1. Thrown ball goes into RF, as R1 and 2B lie on the field.

Please correct me, but I see situation A as obstruction on the catcher, but situation B as interference. This is based on the notion that in A the catcher intiated the contact, but in B the runner did.

My confusion with this rule is how do we determine "attempting to make a play"? Reading rule 2-21-1a, offensive interference should be called anytime the defensive team is restricted from attempting to make a play.

Situation C seems to be obstruction. I would simply award R1 second and allow (not award) R3 to advance home. However, since it is a delayed dead ball, if the RF were sharp and charged the ball and threw out R3 at the plate, then we would have an out with no run scored.

[bob jenkins]

I have nothing in all three scenarios.

Absent intent, they certainly aren't interference.

[scyguy]

Nothing? It situation A, what if catcher after collision, picks up ball and tags R3 out before he can regain himself. Then tell offensive coach, well your runner should of avoided contact? Yeah, I know coach, the catcher moved into his path, but you runner still should of avoided the collision. Not me, I am calling obs on catcher and awarding runner home. That seems better than a no call.

What about in C, both players lie on the field, another fielder picks up ball and tags runner as he lies on the field. Wow, SH!Thouse!!

Bob, you are extremely knowledgable, explain the phase "attempting to make a play". In situation B, was catcher making a play? He is waiting on a ball that is about to reach him. Collision--NO CALL??

Am I trying to over-officiate here? A no call to me is very uncomfortable.

Help me to better understand this situation. Thanks

[DownTownTonyBrown]

It is hard to judge the plays you are describing but from what I can envision...

Situation A is incidental contact - no call.
Situation B is perhaps obstruction - did it impede the runner? Probably not. I would think the runner would score easily with possibly, only the slightest of sidestep - no call if he scores cleanly.
Situation C is incidental contact - no call. "Bad throw/play coach. 2nd base was sleeping and didn't get inside the diamond early enough... unless R1 intentionally created the interference, but you didn't say that.

[mbyron]

Using the "will this explanation please the coaches" test is not a reliable method for ruling on these situations. I'd recommend another test: "is every player doing what the rules permit or require him to do?" Of course, this test is harder to apply, since it requires you to know the rules.

In your cases, the fielder is making a play because he's about to receive the ball in order to tag a runner. If he's in the baseline and the ball is NOT on the way, then contact might be grounds for an obstruction call; but that's not how you described it.

Not all contact is an infraction, even when the contact causes injury.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by scyguy
Nothing? It situation A, what if catcher after collision, picks up ball and tags R3 out before he can regain himself. Then tell offensive coach, well your runner should of avoided contact? Yeah, I know coach, the catcher moved into his path, but you runner still should of avoided the collision. Not me, I am calling obs on catcher and awarding runner home. That seems better than a no call.

The catcher has a right to the position when a play is "imminent". The ball is 10 feet away (according to your description) -- that's about .1 second (depending on the speed of the throw, of course). That's "imminent" in my book.

[scyguy]

Originally posted by mbyron
Using the "will this explanation please the coaches" test is not a reliable method for ruling on these situations. I'd recommend another test: "is every player doing what the rules permit or require him to do?" Of course, this test is harder to apply, since it requires you to know the rules.

true, we are not there to please coaches, but a wise coach will expect a call if his runner is called out after contact with a fielder, especially when his runner was doing his job. I situation A, catcher is attempting to make a play by moving toward the ball (which as stated is only approximately 10 feet away). Catcher moves into the path of runner, knocking runner to the ground, then retrieves ball before runner can reach base--tagged out. If I am the offensive coach and you allow the out to stand, then you will be ejecting me!! I understand that the catcher is not intentionally trying to knock down runner, his focus is on the ball, but on the other hand, the runner is doing his job and has been restricted (by the contact) of safely reaching the base.


In situation B, catcher is waiting for the ball when contact occurs. Looking at this through FED eyes, at which point do we have runner interference, only when catcher actually has possession of the ball? Five feet away? Book only states "while making a play".


In your cases, the fielder is making a play because he's about to receive the ball in order to tag a runner. If he's in the baseline and the ball is NOT on the way, then contact might be grounds for an obstruction call; but that's not how you described it.

Not all contact is an infraction, even when the contact causes injury.

So, if fielder is making a play we have interference? Which stiuation are you refering to? I understand that if the ball is not on the way we have grounds for obs, but that is not the situation presented.

Bottom line is how do we determine "while making a play". Is anyone out there that can give me a straight answer to that question? With all of the brain power on this site, surely someone can give me something to work with.

Finally, in situation C, it is not a bad throw, I is a ploy to draw the runner at 3rd. Good coaches have a numer of methods to deal with the 1st and 3rd situation. One is to throw directly to 2nd. If 2B steps inadvertly into the path of runner "attempting to make a play", then we have to determine whether it is obs or interference. A no call seems inappropriate. If runner achieved position and the 2B runs into him, we have obs?

I understand that contact happens. I understand that we do not always make a call. Help me to better understand when we should.

[Tim C]

The editor of this webpage explained your question this way:

In professional baseball a play is "imminent" when the throw enters the infield. That is defined as entering the "dirt area" indentified as infield.

In college baseball a play is "imminent" when the ball enters the triangle formed by a direct line from first to third base through the mound and anchored by home plate.

The National Federation of High Schools has not identified by ruling a definition for the word "imminent". In Oregon we had a rash of coaches asking for "catcher interference" on play much like what is in example "a" as listed above.

With the lack of a definition this becomes a situation where, as I tell my umpire class, "you sometimes have to umpire!" I am with Bob Jenkins that the example above is clearly an "imminent" play and therefore is nothing.

[scyguy]

thanks Tim, and I hope that I am not beating a dead horse, but if play is imminent, then does that not mean we need to make a call? I am confused and I would appreciate your patience with my ignorance. I thought if it were imminent, then the fielder should be protected.

[Tim C]

If this is a FED game the "protection" of a fielder on a thrown ball comes under "malicious contact".

There is no rule that "protects" a fielder when receiving a throw (other than specific examples such as the runners lane at first base). Contact can easily occur. It is umpire judgement if the contact is "malicious" -- there can be plays where there is a huge amount of contact between fielder and runner and the result can be "nuttin'"

Hope this helps clear things a little and I also hope I have read your question correctly.



[Edited by Tim C on Mar 9th, 2005 at 09:55 AM]

[scyguy]

Here is my confusion, contact occurs between a fielder and a runner. We have these options: obs, interference, malicious contact or no call. I know in my mind when malicious contact should be called. I must see intent to harm. However, when do we apply obs, interference or just ignore contact with a no call?

I hear words like "play must be imminent in order to call interference". FED rules say "attempting to make a play" in order to call interference. How do you determine these acts?? Fed states that in order for obstruction to be called we must observe an act that "hinders the runner".

I know you are being very patient with me and I appreciate it very much. I know its umpire judgement based on accually observing the situation. But is there some criteria I can lean on to help me? Is it obs? Is it interference? Is it a no call situation??

[jicecone]

Try these examples:

Fielder, while attempting to take throw, sticks out his leg and slightly trips runner going to second. Obstruction?

Runner on his way to second, tries an Arod play and attempts to slap the ball or glove of the fielder, to prevent a play from being made. Interference?

Everything in between, including malicious contact will be your judgement. As already suggested here, your best call, may not be any call at all.

[GarthB]

I hear words like "play must be imminent in order to call interference". FED rules say "attempting to make a play" in order to call interference. How do you determine these acts?? Fed states that in order for obstruction to be called we must observe an act that "hinders the runner".

Don't confuse a fielder fielding a batted ball and a fielder receiving a throw. Two different animals.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by GarthB
I hear words like "play must be imminent in order to call interference". FED rules say "attempting to make a play" in order to call interference. How do you determine these acts?? Fed states that in order for obstruction to be called we must observe an act that "hinders the runner".

Don't confuse a fielder fielding a batted ball and a fielder receiving a throw. Two different animals.

And, to expand on that, interference with a thrown ball (or with a fielder receiving a throw) must be intentional (with the possible exception of the running lane toward first -- although the runner should know where he is, so you could make the claim that even this interference is intentional).

So, in none of the plays mentioned do you have interference.

The question then becomes, is it obstruction, or nothing.

In FED ball (and OBR), it's all judgment. In NCAA, you could have obstruction if the runner was blocked off the base before the fielder was holding the ball AND the throw did not take the fielder into the path.

[scyguy]

okay, so let me get this straight in my head, on a thrown ball we cannot have interference unless it is intentional. However, we can have intentional contact and it not be deeded malicious. Correct?

We can have obs on a thrown ball if fielder hinders runner ie blocks 1B on a pickoff move. Correct?

8-4-2g intentionally interferes with throw or a thrown ball

got it. Thanks guys